Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shrinkflation Tracker

shrinkflation.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 240 posts

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#171

Post by freeqaz »

chongli wrote: post #113
wppick wrote: post #97

Another source of shrinkflation is changing ingredients. Something that used to be 50% water is now 75% water as an example. Another is changing from olive oil to canola or palm or, and things like that.

One of the worst offenders in this regard is packages of frozen meat products such as chicken wings, chicken fingers, nuggets, etc. They used to just contain the breaded meat with the net weight printed on the box (usually 2 lb). Now they've started including frozen sauce packets as well. I've weighed some of these and found, for example, a 2 lb box of chicken wings that comes with more than half a pound of buffalo s…

That's amazing that it isn't illegal to do that. I wonder if the laws will force companies to list out how much weight each component is like that.

But then again if there is no health impact (like with Trans fats) then is there any incentive for the regulators to change this?

Has the FDA ever done any work to protect consumers from sketchy marketing/labeling of products?

(I asked ChatGPT and it gave me a few bits. Apparently the term "Healthy" is regulated. And serving sizes are another that seem to be regulated. Maybe there is an angle within there that would make sense.)

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#172

Post by Gud »

amelius wrote: post #166
aequitas wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Every time you see a package with “new and improved recipe” you can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper ingredients, not the actual taste.

How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s

"better" doesn't necessarily mean higher quality. It can mean faster delivery, cheaper, lighter, etc. Many parameters goes into better.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#173

Post by hinkley »

aequitas wrote: post #153
hinkley wrote: post #141

I was just talking today to someone about how they don't like food from a certain global coffee chain anymore because their food has gotten kinda crappy. Shrinkflation generally means same price for less product (grams, fluid ounces), but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella or track it as a separate problem? Since they…

> but enshitification by slowly decreasing the quality of the ingredients is also a problem. Every time you see a package with “new and improved recipe” you can bet it only improved their margins by using cheaper ingredients, not the actual taste.

They didn't say who the recipe was improved for...

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#174

Post by hinkley »

shaftoe wrote: post #170
amelius wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s

Actually, free markets do lead to better products. But they cost more than the worse products. Look at coffee. The gradual shift from Arabica to more Robusta beans over a generation. Each year, an imperceptible shift was taken that, over decades, lead to coffee that tastes terrible. Opening the door for companies like Starbucks and a ton of gourmet roasters to compete. But properly roasted, single origin coffee costs…

I react poorly to some coffees and not others. I've been told by people who claim to know that some people can't stomach Robusta as well as they can Arabica. And I'll be damned if I know how to track which one I'm actually getting.

I've surrendered and just drink tea and chai now.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#175

Post by hinkley »

krapp wrote: post #168
amelius wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we put that under the shrinkflation umbrella No we call it just that, enshittification.

>No we call it just that, enshittification. I'll be glad when this juvenile meme finally passes out of Hacker News' system.

It's basically 'race to the bottom' but that term is not very inspirational. It's not evoking any kind of reaction in the masses.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#177

Post by Vicinity9635 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #15
eatsyourtacos wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would this benefit society? To put factual and open information out there of how companies consistently just fuck with all of us and get away with every little thing they can because "profits!" and "their duty to investors!". e.g., the biggest lies our societies ever came up with

It is already open information that pretty much every seller of everything in the whole world tries to sell for as high of a price that they think can get. And that purchasing power of currencies will go down over time.

>And that purchasing power of currencies will go down over time.

This is only true when you keep printing more of it. The creation of currency outpacing the creation of value is inflation.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#178

Post by amelius »

Gud wrote: post #172
amelius wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s

"better" doesn't necessarily mean higher quality. It can mean faster delivery, cheaper, lighter, etc. Many parameters goes into better.

Yet every time I see a product advertised with "new and improved recipe", I can rarely tell along which axes it has actually improved. Usually I want the old product back.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#179

Post by amelius »

shaftoe wrote: post #170
amelius wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that possible if the rock solid theory underlying the free market promises us better products? /s

Actually, free markets do lead to better products. But they cost more than the worse products. Look at coffee. The gradual shift from Arabica to more Robusta beans over a generation. Each year, an imperceptible shift was taken that, over decades, lead to coffee that tastes terrible. Opening the door for companies like Starbucks and a ton of gourmet roasters to compete. But properly roasted, single origin coffee costs…

The only thing that Starbucks did for coffee was that children now also love to drink it.

In fact their coffee doesn't taste like coffee, but more like mocha/hazelnut ice cream.

Re: Shrinkflation Tracker

#180

Post by chucksmash »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #106
xwdv wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wouldn’t feel tricked, but then they’d be pissed off at the rising prices, which affects their ability to enjoy the product. If someone sells you a bag of chips but they’ve already eaten two of the chips, your enjoyment of the bag will still be the same as if you had the whole bag. If they reveal that fact to you though, then your experience will be soured. This is for the consumer’s own benefit.

People just like to feel outraged, apparently.

If you've always been sold a dozen eggs in a package that can hold twelve eggs, but suddenly the same package is relabelled and used to sell you only ten eggs, who in the world looks at that situation and says "as a rational market participant, I can't be mad because the package has indeed been updated to say 'ten eggs' and I just failed to take notice (yolk's on me)."

People like to be dealt with fairly. When they occasionally notice things that make them realize there are rooms full of people whose entire job is to trick them, they don't like it. Where's the mystery?

Post reply on HN